Quote Response

I would have to say that I do not fully agree or disagree with this particular quote. There are some parts of what Lawrence Weiner said that I cannot get my head all the way around or try to understand where he was getting that idea from. When he states that "The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. " Is where I have very mixed feelings about this quote. I do agree that when you view a piece of art that it can actually change your life forever. Although I have to say that the change that it creates is not a drastic one but more of one that unconsciously alters your outlook and certain schema's about things. As in a change that you really cant feel you see or even one you do not even know happened, but it is there. I am not sure about the part of the quote where he states that a piece of art work can alter your perception of the rest of the world. 
I do not agree with that, in my opinion there is no way that anything could change all of that without what you were looking at was completely life changing. Everything you would probably see after that inspiring piece will just not live up to the one that moved you in the first place. So that is why I cannot agree that every piece of "art" moves you and changes your perception about things. Only a piece that triggers a past memory or strong feeling is the only thing that can do that. Not any old piece of art. Although in the second part of his statement from "Between Artists" he then states that if does not change your perception then the piece should not be considered art. He then went on to call it a commodity as in something for your well-being not an endowing piece. 
"And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity." This is his second part of the statement that follows the first part. I find this part of the quote very controversial and I cannot see how he gets this idea into his head in the first place. I think this a very generalized statement to say and I do not think that every work of art can be squeezed to fit into that category. Every work of art was created in a different way for a particular reason not just to move somebody. For example an artist may do a project that encompasses the way he feels about a certain subject. He is not creating it to change a person's view of the world but rather too express his built up feelings. So that is why I cannot agree with Lawrence Weiner when it comes to that part. To create something that would change the viewers entire perception is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish. A lot of thought and time needs to be put into your work to even come close to completing something that would fulfill those requirements. 

I am somewhat angered by the fact of him stating that if it does not complete its task of moving the viewer than it should be labeled as a commodity and not a work of art. In my opinion that is a very ignorant generalization to make. Labeling something as a commodity basically means that it does not live up to the present standards of today's art and is than is something related to that of an eyesore. Compared to what is fit into today's view of art is a wide range of unique pieces that definitely express our generations view on this topic. All in all I would have to say that there are certain elements that I can thoroughly agree with and definitely understand where he was coming from also what point he was trying to convey by saying them. I still have mixed feelings about this and I would have to say that I cannot be on his side with that quote, I am one who would fight against these kinds of outrageous topics.